Writ Against Show Cause/ Demand Notice Can Be Entertained Only On Limited Grounds Like Lack Of Jurisdiction, Allegation Of Malafides: Madras HC

In a dispute regarding payment of rent to Kapaleeswar temple by Mylapore Club, the Madras High Court has observed that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in a routine manner against a show-cause notice or demand notice issued by competent authorities.

The court also held that the Mylapore club will be bound to pay fair rent fixed under Section 34 (A) (1) of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter 'Act')  with regards to the temple land leased out to them.

Justice S.M Subramaniam dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits and noted in the order that the club has the liberty to approach the competent authority in case of a dispute regarding the rental amount fixed as shown in the demand notice.

The court also reasoned that the power of judicial review under Article 226 has been provided to ensure whether the processes through which a competent authority takes a decision is in consonance with the applicable Acts and Rules. The writ jurisdiction is not meant to be invoked for show cause notices or demand notices by competent authorities.

"Thus, all disputed facts and circumstances are to be adjudicated before the competent authority or before the appellate authority concerned...The demand notices are issued based on the initial determination made by the original authorities. In the event of any objection, then an adjudication must be done with reference to the documents and evidences. In the present case, if at all any dispute arises regarding the calculation, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authority or the appellate authority by preferring an appeal in the manner prescribed. However, a writ petition need not be entertained at this stage and High Court cannot adjudicate the issues relating to the fixation of rent already made by following the procedures by the respondents", the court clarified the law on entertaining writs.

The court also added that a writ against demand notices or show cause notices are entertained only if the same has been issued by a non-competent authority or if there are allegations of malafides. Even if such are the circumstances, the authority against whom such malafides has been attributed must be impleaded in his/ her/ their personal capacity.

A demand notice was issued to the lessee club by the Joint Commissioner of Arulmighu Kapaleeswar Temple on 22nd December, 2021. According to the petitioner, a fair rent under the Act has not been fixed for the temple premises they currently occupy.

It is pertinent to note that the prescribed maximum lease period under Section 34 is five years, beyond which the approval of competent authority/ government is mandatory. According to Section 34A (1), the fixation of rent that must be paid by the lessee is determined by a Committee comprising of the joint commissioner/ executive officer or the Trustee/ Chairman of Board of Trustees of the religious institution along with the District Registrar of the Registration Department. The rent amount is arrived at by taking into account the current rental market value and other guidelines, periodically revised once in every three years.

The court also made an observation that the mandatory procedure under Section 34 (A) 1 must be followed by the HR & CE Department and any lapse committed or dereliction of duty causing financial losses to the temples will result in the concerned official being prosecuted.

"Once the H.R.&C.E., Department has taken over the temple and its administration, then they are submitting themselves for a clean and transparent administration, and for the protection of the temple, its belongings and its properties. Taking over the temple properties and committing the lapses, negligence and dereliction of duty is serious in view of the fact that the great souls, out of their devotion to the God, donated their valuable properties and their belongings to the deity and therefore, the wishes of the donors as per their intention is to be fulfilled. In the event of any violation, they are not only violating the provisions of the Act and Rules but also violating the terms and conditions on which the properties are donated by the donors for the benefit of the temple and the devotees", the court further remarked.

The court then perused the demand notice challenged, dated 22nd December, 2021, and reached the conclusion that the rent was fixed from 2016. It was also duly communicated to the petitioner along with break up details in respect of arrears of rent yet to be received.

Therefore, the court concluded that the petitioner Club can either comply with the demand notice and pay the rent fixed under Section 34 (A) 1 or prefer an appeal before the competent authority in the manner prescribed under the Act.

Case Title: The Mylapore Club v. The Joint Commissioner/ Executive Officer & Anr.

Case No: W.P.No.471 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 52

Click Here To Read/ Download Order